Cited by 57Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Do unexplained symptoms predict anxiety or depression? Ten-year data from a practice-based research network

Open access
van Boven, Kees, Lucassen, Peter, van Ravesteijn, Hiske, Hartman, Tim olde, Bor, Hans, van Weel-Baumgarten, Evelyn, van Weel, Chris·2011·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unexplained symptoms are associated with depression and anxiety. This association is largely based on cross-sectional research of symptoms experienced by patients but not of symptoms presented to the GP. AIM: To investigate whether unexplained symptoms as presented to the GP predict mental disorders. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of data from a practice-based research network of GPs, the Transition Project, in the Netherlands. METHOD: All data about contacts between patients (n = 16,000) and GPs (n = 10) from 1997 to 2008 were used. The relation between unexplained symptoms episodes and depression and anxiety was calculated and compared with the relation between somatic symptoms episodes and depression and anxiety. The predictive value of unexplained symptoms episodes for depression and anxiety was determined. RESULTS: All somatoform symptom episodes and most somatic symptom episodes are significantly associated with depression and anxiety. Presenting two or more symptoms episodes gives a five-fold increase of the risk of anxiety or depression. The positive predictive value of all symptom episodes for anxiety and depression was very limited. There was little difference between somatoform and somatic symptom episodes with respect to the prediction of anxiety or depression. CONCLUSION: Somatoform symptom episodes have a statistically significant relation with anxiety and depression. The same was true for somatic symptom episodes. Despite the significant odds ratios, the predictive value of symptom episodes for anxiety and depression is low. Consequently, screening for these mental health problems in patients presenting unexplained symptom episodes is not justified in primary care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/bjgp11x577981

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research has shown that somatic symptoms are associated with at least a 2-fold increase in the likelihood of having a depressive and/or anxiety disorder.

    “research has shown that they are associated with at least a 2-fold increase in the likelihood of having a depressive and/or anxiety disorder (Kroenke et al., 1997; Janssens et al., 2010; van Boven et al., 2011; Groen et al., 2021).”

    From Does the practice of mindfulness reduce somatic symptoms and COVID-19-related anxiety? A community-based survey (2022) · cites this paper as van Boven et al., 2011

    The Summary reports an association between somatic symptoms and anxiety or depression, but gives odds ratios ranging from 0.69 to 3.02—not uniformly at least twofold. It reports a 3–4-fold higher risk specifically for patients with two or more symptom episodes, a qualification absent from the claim. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Marinus AMF. Inter-doctor variation in general practice. PhD thesis. Meppel: Krips, 1993.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Boven, K., Lucassen, P., van Ravesteijn, H., Hartman, T. O., Bor, H., van Weel-Baumgarten, E., & van Weel, C.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2011-06
Volume
61
Issue
587
Pages
e316-e325
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2105939577
Cited by
57
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
unexplained symptoms, somatoform symptoms, somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, mental disorder prediction, positive predictive value, primary care, mental health screening, transition projects
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Middle Aged, Somatoform Disorders, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review